when it declared the cassation appeal inadmissible […].” 473 From the foregoing, it is clear that the judge did not examine this argument, because he considered that it had already been examined in cassation. 334. The third motion for review was declared inadmissible by the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela in decision No. 2008-00236 of May 28, 2008. In that motion, Mr. Mora requested the annulment of his conviction based on two specific claims: i) in relation to the abbreviated procedure, “neither the CCP of 1996 nor the alternative measures regulated therein can be considered as a more favorable law for the purposes of applying them to events that occurred prior to its entry into force, and ii) he was not advised of his right to abstain when accepting the facts for the application of the abbreviated [procedure].” Regarding the second point, the appellant “indicated that when the Third Chamber resolved the appeal for review in which this grievance was raised, the application of the CCP had just begun and the claim was declared inadmissible, although subsequently there have been rulings (which he cites) by the Third Chamber and the Court of Cassation that consider such warning pertinent.” 474 In this regard, the Court of Criminal Cassation ruled that the first grievance “is manifestly unfounded,” considering that “[t]he plaintiff's argument confuses the criminal action for which he was convicted, a substantive issue, with the application of the abbreviated procedure, evidently a procedural matter; demanding that the procedural rules in force at the time of the commission of the act be applicable to him, a clearly inappropriate issue.” As for the second claim, it pointed out that “[…] as the plaintiff himself admits, it was previously raised in a motion for review and declared inadmissible.” Furthermore, it indicated that [t]he existence of contradictory resolutions on theoretical issues is not, for the time being, grounds for a review.” 475 335. With respect to the fourth motion for review, the Court of Criminal Cassation declared it inadmissible in decision No. 2008-00557 of November 25, 2008. Mr. Mora requested that his conviction be annulled based on two arguments. First, he alleged that the conviction was flawed in iudicando, in violation of due process and the principle of opportunity of defense. He indicated that the facts alleged in his case occurred prior to the enactment of the CCP and for this reason it cannot be applied retroactively since this has been established by the Constitutional Chamber in its jurisprudence. 476 In addition, he argued that the principle of legality was violated by giving retroactive effect to procedural law. Secondly, he alleged another error in iudicando to the detriment of Articles 39 477 and 41 478 of the Constitution, inasmuch as the abbreviated procedure circumvented the right to double judicial instance. He argued that there had been a breach of the principle of opportunity of defense and requested that the case files be returned to the moment the sentence was issued so that he could exercise the opportunity of defense through an appeal or, failing that, that the authority submit a judicial critique on the unconstitutionality of the CCP for not allowing ordinary Cf. Decision No. 2007-00546 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, of October 5, 2007, (evidence file, folio 35466). 474 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00236 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, of May 28, 2008, (evidence file, folio 35483). 475 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00236 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, of May 28, 2008, (evidence file, folio 35483). 476 Cf. Motion for review of September 5, 2008 (evidence file, folios 6221 to 6223). 477 Article 39. - No one shall be punished except for a crime, wrongful act or misdemeanor, punishable by prior law and by virtue of a final judgment rendered by a competent authority, after the defendant has been given the opportunity to exercise his defense and by means of the necessary proof of guilt. In civil or labor matters, corporal constraint or detentions that may be decreed in insolvencies, bankruptcies or creditors' meetings shall not constitute a violation of this article or of the two preceding articles. 478 Article 41. - Obeying the laws, everyone shall find redress for the injuries or damages they have received in their person, property or moral interests. Justice must be rendered promptly, complied with, without denial and in strict conformity with the laws. 473 109